4.1 Article

The impact of different biocompatible coated cardiopulmonary bypass circuits on inflammatory response and oxidative stress

期刊

PERFUSION-UK
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 231-237

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0267659109351218

关键词

coronary artery bypass grafting; cardiopulmonary bypass; biocompatible coating material; inflammatory response; oxidative stress

资金

  1. GREAT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was to compare the impact of different biocompatible coated circuits on inflammatory response and oxidative stress induced during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Seventy-eight patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with CPB were randomly assigned to five groups with different biocompatible coated circuits: Trillium, Bioline, Phosphorylcholine, Polymethoxyethyl acrylate (PMEA), and the uncoated control group. Blood was drawn at three different time points: before CPB, 6 and 72 hours post CPB. Unlike the Trillium group, serum levels of TNF-alpha in the Bioline and Phosphorylcholine groups significantly increased only at 72 hours post CPB (p < 0.05). Serum levels of IL-6 significantly increased at 6 and 72 hours post CPB in all groups (p < 0.01). The Trillium group showed a significant increase of IL-10 compared to the control group at 72 hours post CPB (p < 0.05). Serum levels of NOx in the Phosphorylcholine group significantly decreased at 6 hours post CPB compared to baseline (p < 0.05). Both the Bioline and Phosphorylcholine groups showed statistical decreases in serum NOx levels compared with other groups at 6 hours post CPB (p < 0.05). A significant difference in NOx levels between the Bioline and the control group was also observed at 72 hours post CPB. Myeloperoxidase levels were significantly elevated at 6 and 72 hours post CPB in all groups (p < 0.05). Inflammatory response and oxidative stress are elevated during CABG with CPB. Heparin-coated and the Phosphorylcholine-coated circuits induce less inflammatory responses and oxidative stress compared to other circuits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据